Brian,

I hate to be disagreeable because I know how sensible and intelligent you
are, but the IPCC report for policy makers did more to convince me the
"global warming" theory is a fallacy than to convince me it is based on
sound science.  Largely because I saw little objectivity in the report.
 The points in the report I could rant about are too numerous for an
e-mail, but I did find that John Daly maintains an extensive website where
he covers every one of those points.  http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
 (Thanks Chuck for tipping me off to that web site.)  Naturally, one should
be skeptical of anything anyone says about anything.  I know I am.
 Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on you point of view, John has
solid references for ALL of his arguments.

The burning issue that STILL has not been addressed with the "global
warming" theory is that satellite data (which is many orders of magnitude
more accurate than surface temperature data) and balloon data have shown a
 negative warming trend while surface temperature measurements have shown
a positive warming trend.  There exist NO theory as to why satellite data
would show a cooling trend, but there is a rock solid theory that
demonstrates how surface temperature measurements will increase due to
urbanization around a weather box.  In fact, the "global warming" theory
recognizes this 'heat island' effect and tries to compensate for it using a
simple model.  However, skeptics quickly point out that the simple
compensation is far too inadequate, producing a noise that is seen as
warming.  This is seen by comparing surface measurements with the satellite
data.

On another point, the computer models that supposedly show a good fit
between the accumulation of CO2 and the supposed increase in global
temperatures ASSUME complete mixing of the atmosphere between the surface,
and the points where satellites would measure the air temperature.  In
other word, computer models ASSUME satellite data and surface data directly
correlate.  However, the computer models do NOT show a good fit between
model temperatures and satellite data because the satellite data shows a
cooling trend.  Therefore, the model is wrong if it doesn't match satellite
data.  Alternatively, if the original assumption is wrong, then so is the
model and it can't be used.

As a final point, ALL of the circumstantial evidence has error bars on the
data points.  Very large error bars.  Big enough that it leaves that door
open as to showing a human induced warming trend or not showing a trend.
 However, the evidence against "global warming" does not have large error
bars on the data points (such as satellite data, growth of ice fields in
antartica, non-warming trends in the artics where computer show it will
occur first, etc.).  Until solid evidence against "global warming" can be
discredited, it is difficult to become excited about jumping on the "global
warming" bandwagon.

Ryan Grant



-----Original Message-----
From:   Brian Ellis [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:18 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: [EN] EARTH'S ICE MELTING FASTER THAN PROJECTED

Chuck

I'm currently travelling and am using DUN from my hotel room, so I'll
answer only your question 1. Yes! I'm 100% sure that atmospheric CO2
levels are increasing. I have a number of independent sources at home
(hence I can't quote chapter and verse from here) that they have been
steadily increasing since the mid-1800s and they more or less concur,
give or take an ounce or two, in different countries. They were
reasonably steady for some centuries before the rise started. These are
mostly direct analyses, even 150 years ago, but much earlier data was
derived from ice cores. Furthermore, these increases concur with
increased use of fossil fuel. I'm therefore confident that there is a
correlation. However, I agree that there is no DIRECT scientific proof
that these changes are causal to climate change, but there is sufficient
circumstantial evidence to raise doubt in the most confirmed sceptic, if
he impartially looks at the evidence with an open mind. Furthermore,
there is a damn good fit between natural and human-origin radiative
forcing, together, and measured global average temperatures over the
past 150 years. You can check it out on the IPCC web site. To denigrate
the members of this panel for the man-years of work they are
collectively volunteering, at their own expense, is, IMHO, very facile
because none of them have anything to gain from their findings.

If you wish to find out more, meet me at the Earth Technologies Forum in
Washington DC next week (leave a message for me in the Press Room). You
will be presented with some very convincing arguments regarding both
climate change and ozone depletion. This is a MUST for anyone with an
interest in the air around us.

Best regards,

Brian

Charles Dolci wrote:
>
> Paul Chalmer posted some interesting questions, but I do not think they
are the
> right questions to ask.
>
> 1.  Is the evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are steadily
> increasing reliable?
> Maybe, maybe not. But whatever the answer is, it says nothing of either
the
> source or the effect. It is not certain that man is the sole source of
increases
> in CO2 in the atmosphere. A study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
> reported in the March 12 issue of the journal Science, addressed the
question
> "when the Earth shifts from glacial to warm periods which comes first: an
> increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, or an increase in global
> temperature". Contrary to what many believed the team concluded that the
> temperature rise comes first, followed by a carbon dioxide boost 400 to
1,000
> years later.
> This theory was bolstered by recent observations of what is happening on
Mars.
> In a November/December 2001 article in the journal Science it was
reported that
> vast fields of carbon dioxide ice were eroding from the poles of Mars,
> suggesting that the climate of that planet is warming and CO2 was being
released
> to the atmosphere.  Michael A. Caplinger, a scientist with Malin Space
Science
> Systems, and co-author of the study, had analyzed photos of Mars taken by
an
> orbiting spacecraft. There, a "global warming" clearly preceded and
caused, an
> increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
> As I had indicated in an earlier posting, at a DECHEMA colloquium, held
in
> Frankfurt on 11th Oct, 2001, Dr. Heinz Hug (lecturer, Wiesbaden, Germany)
and
> Dr. Jack Barrett (Imperial College, London, UK) gave papers that
expressed
> doubts about the science (or lack thereof) that had been applied by
members of
> the IPCC in coming to their conclusions about CO2 and future climate
change.
> Their laboratory research strongly suggested that the radiative forcing
affect
> of CO2 was actually substantially less than the IPCC models had assumed.
The
> greenhouse gas that has the major contributive affect on warming is water
vapor.
>
> 2.  Will a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration,
> AT SOME POINT, be sufficient to overwhelm all other possibly confounding
> variables (such as increased cloud cover), and lead to unequivocal
warming?
>
> Of course, given how the question is stated, the answer has to be YES, it
is
> theoretically possible. But the relevant question is "What is the
likelihood
> that man will be able to create enough CO2 to have an irrecoverable
impact on
> the earth's climate?" I think the answer to that is "It is very
unlikely".
> Burning fossil fuels, other than coal, is a phenomenon of the 20th
century, and
> it is unlikely that it will extend much beyond that, even though
resources of
> petroleum and natural gas will still be plentiful. Even the use of coal
to any
> significant extent is only a couple of centuries old. If mankind follows
its
> history by the end of the 21st century burning fossil fuels will probably
be a
> thing of the past. And if the rest of the world follows the lead of
Europe and
> the US and Canada the world population will actually start to decline.
>
> 3.  Will the deleterious effects of this warming on the habitability of
the
> planet, AT SOME POINT, outweigh any local benefits such as increased
> rainfall, or global benefits such as enhanced photosynthesis?
>
> First, I am not prepared to admit the premise that "this warming" (if it
is
> happening at all) is having a deleterious effect on the globe. For one
thing the
> earth used to be a lot warmer (most recently during the Medieval Warm
Period)
> and it didn't seem to suffer too much. If there is warming it will extend
> growing seasons thereby increasing crop yields which will lower food
costs.
> Fewer people die from really hot summer days than die from really cold
winter
> days.  Secondly, we are talking about CHANGE, and people may not like
change,
> but NOTHING has been constant since man has been on this planet so why
should we
> think that things should suddenly stop changing now, merely because we
have
> developed the ability to measure the world around us. Of course, if the
> temperature of the earth should return to what it was 1 billion years ago
that
> might be rough, but would that happen as a result of "this warming".
>
> 4.  Given the difficulty in reversing the trend to increasing carbon
dioxide
> levels, once established, and given that the locations of the "points" in
> items 2 and 3 are unknown, is there any basis for assuming there is a
> comfort zone where we can afford to wait and see if it matters?
>
> It has not been established that "reversing the trend" is difficult. A
good
> world wide recession lasting a few years will handle that nicely, or just
make
> more seltzer water. And I do not believe that the "trend" is caused by
human
> activity so there is nothing we can or need do to reverse it. Since the
earth
> has gone through climate cycles in the past why should we assume that
this one
> will be any different?  One thing is not subject to debate, and that is
that
> wealth means energy. If you cut energy you reduce wealth and millions of
people
> around the globe will suffer and the poorer peoples suffer the most.
>
> So given that there are an awful lot of "unknowns" and it has never been
> established (or even any credible evidence provided) that any of this is
> irreversible, I propose that we do wait and see before we force the world
into a
> recession.
>
> Chuck Dolci
>
> ------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> From: "Chalmer, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [EN] EARTH'S ICE MELTING FASTER THAN PROJECTED
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> An interesting interchange, with many valuable references.  The question
of
> melting glaciers and other evidence of global warming is certainly worth
> debating, though the signal-to-noise ratio will probably be slim enough
for
> the next several years to preclude any definitive resolution.
>
> I would be curious, though, to know the degree of consensus in the sample
of
> opinion represented by this list serve on the answers to the following
> sequence of questions:
>
> 1.  Is the evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are steadily
> increasing reliable?
> 2.  Will a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration,
> AT SOME POINT, be sufficient to overwhelm all other possibly confounding
> variables (such as increased cloud cover), and lead to unequivocal
warming?
> 3.  Will the deleterious effects of this warming on the habitability of
the
> planet, AT SOME POINT, outweigh any local benefits such as increased
> rainfall, or global benefits such as enhanced photosynthesis?
> 4.  Given the difficulty in reversing the trend to increasing carbon
dioxide
> levels, once established, and given that the locations of the "points" in
> items 2 and 3 are unknown, is there any basis for assuming there is a
> comfort zone where we can afford to wait and see if it matters?